From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon May 22 00:51:52 2006
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
X-Original-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from localhost.my.domain (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCCD716A542;
	Mon, 22 May 2006 00:51:51 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from davidxu@freebsd.org)
From: David Xu <davidxu@freebsd.org>
To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 08:51:39 +0800
User-Agent: KMail/1.8.2
References: <20060430142408.fcd60069.rosti.bsd@gmail.com>
	<200605211606.43381.davidxu@freebsd.org>
	<200605212351.k4LNpmhJ095330@apollo.backplane.com>
In-Reply-To: <200605212351.k4LNpmhJ095330@apollo.backplane.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="gb2312"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200605220851.40212.davidxu@freebsd.org>
Cc: Rostislav Krasny <rosti.bsd@gmail.com>, Igor Sysoev <is@rambler-co.ru>,
	Colin Percival <cperciva@freebsd.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] FreeBSD-SA-06:14.fpu
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 00:51:52 -0000

On Monday 22 May 2006 07:51, Matthew Dillon wrote:
> :> By the way, following command could be used to check how kernel has
> :> been compiled, regarding the CPU_FXSAVE_LEAK option:
> :>
> :> objdump -x /boot/kernel/kernel | grep fpu_clean_state
> :
> :The patch looks fine to me, but can it be CPU_FXSAVE_NOLEAK ?
> :so only people know the problem will turn it on.
> :
> :David Xu
>
>     I don't think it really needs to be optioned.  Since the FPU state
>     is demand-loaded from a trap/exception anyway, a huge amount of code
>     is run in the same path that fpu_clean_state is called from.
>     fpu_clean_state itself only eats a few nanoseconds (like maybe ~1/10
>     of the time that fninit takes).
>
> 						-Matt
>
>
I personally hate to see such nasty code if my CPU does not have such a
nasty bug, I don't know if the existing code really has impact in real world.

David Xu